Commercial Photography & Models With Tattoo's

[JonA_CT]

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?

the article is public domain it's everywhere lol

Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.

I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.

It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and i did no such thing.. #2 publish it commercially,
artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism.
lol

Nope, nope, and nope.

They attribute their sources which you didn't do.

I've already wasted more of my time than I should have...but you seem to be suggesting that a picture of someone's tattoo has more copyright protection than written intellectual property. Again, ironic.

 

[donny1963]

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?

the article is public domain it's everywhere lol

Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.

I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.

It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and i did no such thing.. #2 publish it commercially,
artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism.
lol

Nope, nope, and nope.

They attribute their sources which you didn't do.

I've already wasted more of my time than I should have...but you seem to be suggesting that a picture of someone's tattoo has more copyright protection than written intellectual property. Again, ironic.

Ironic or not, i doubt they will complain...
So the topic is moot..

 

[donny1963]

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?

the article is public domain it's everywhere lol

Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.

I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.

It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and i did no such thing.. #2 publish it commercially,
artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism.
lol

Nope, nope, and nope.

They attribute their sources which you didn't do.

I've already wasted more of my time than I should have...but you seem to be suggesting that a picture of someone's tattoo has more copyright protection than written intellectual property. Again, ironic.

and i did give attribute, i posted the link to it..

 

[Designer]

and i did give attribute, i posted the link to it..

Including a link embedded within the text is not the same as proper attribution.

 

[Designer]

..it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.

"You got the wrong attorney."

"No, I got the wrong JUDGE."

 

[donny1963]

In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.

Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.

Don't forget even tattoo artist have been taken to court in the past for Trademark infringements, i believe one was the TV show Choopers, they was a guy in the show who had a Harley Davidson Logo, and the words harley davidson, and the company "harley davidson" took the network and the creator of the show to court and settled out of court who knows what they got for damages, but harley davidson i believe was asking for 300 mill on that one..

Same thing happend years ago, Warner brothers, a tattoo artist got in hot water for Creating a Bugs Bunny with the words wha'ts up DOC above it, and that was a trademark infringement..
the way i see it i think you can't put trademark tattoos on people , like the apple symbol that the computer company uses, or Nike, or any company logo, like toyota or nissan, all these are trademarks and it believe it would be a copyright infringement to do just that with out expressed written permission by the copyright holder..

 

[donny1963]

..it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.

"You got the wrong attorney."

"No, I got the wrong JUDGE."

unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..

 

[Designer]

unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..

You're wrong about that. In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case. The voters had the last word.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately. The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.

 

[donny1963]

unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..

You're wrong about that. In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case. The voters had the last word.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately. The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.

 

[donny1963]

unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..

You're wrong about that. In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case. The voters had the last word.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately. The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.

Only in the abstract the people have the last say, Legislature can make laws but Supreme Court Judges can Just change them..
they are rare cases where judges get benched or in trouble, this is not the norm..
This hardly ever happens, many cases where people was furious on a Judges ruling, but they was nothing any one can do about it..
Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws but, in the end the supreme court has the last word..
Examplel, where president trump signed an order in immigration, the Supreme courts over ruled this, they was nothing the Legislature or the president could do.

here is a quote
"It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

 

[donny1963]

unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..

You're wrong about that. In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case. The voters had the last word.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately. The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.

Only in the abstract the people have the last say, Legislature can make laws but Supreme Court Judges can Just change them..
they are rare cases where judges get benched or in trouble, this is not the norm..
This hardly ever happens, many cases where people was furious on a Judges ruling, but they was nothing any one can do about it..
Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws but, in the end the supreme court has the last word..
Examplel, where president trump signed an order in immigration, the Supreme courts over ruled this, they was nothing the Legislature or the president could do.

NOPE it's the supreme court judges who have the last word, not the Legislature's, laws are made by legislation, but many times re-decided by the judges later on..
the last stop is always the supreme court, that is why it's called the supreme court lol




here is a quote
"It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

 

[donny1963]

unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..

You're wrong about that. In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case. The voters had the last word.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately. The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.

Nope not ture, the laws start with the legislature, the finale ruling is the supreme court after it was passed by legislature, the supreme court always has the last word, that is why it's called the supreme court, LOL

 

[Designer]

Example, where president trump signed an order in immigration, the Supreme courts over ruled this, they was nothing the Legislature or the president could do.

You're getting your facts mixed up.

 

[Designer]

Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws but, in the end the supreme court has the last word.

Just wondering; are you a United States Citizen? Have you studied Government? Were you awake in class?

 

[table1349]

Well considering that the Maori could have sued the Tyson's tattoo artist for using their ancestral tattoo art, I agree that is about as stupid of argument as there ever was.

Not really that stupid, it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.
The choice they make could effect on how Models or actors are published on print or film.
If the courts side with tattoo artists, then any one's photograph published with art on the body showing, would not only have to get a release
from the models or talent, they would also need one from the tattoo artist..

No it was settled out of court. You are behind the times.